Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 22,112 results that match your search.22,112 results
  • In January 2015, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) and Cambodia's Ministry of Industry and Handicraft (MIH) for aligning the IP regimes of the two countries. Following the IPOS/Cambodia MoU, on September 21 2015, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) and IPOS signed a new MoU. With these two MoUs, IPOS expands its global leadership role by cementing its global ties with UKIPO and opening a new entry into Cambodia's IP regime.
  • Since being established in 2008, the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court has in its judgments adopted successively the public dedication doctrine developed from US practice. For instance, in a decision rendered in a patent infringement case in 2012, the IP Court pointed out that: for an embodiment disclosed in the specification but not claimed in the claims, it should be deemed to be dedicated to the public, and the claims may not be substantially broadened or altered after publication of the allowance of the patent application based on the disclosure of the specification. This may prohibit an applicant from disclosing his invention in a broader sense in the specification but claiming a narrower scope in the claims so as to facilitate allowance and later asserting a broader scope based on the specification in case of infringement disputes.
  • In a decision of the Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks (SOIT) in July 2015, the examiners found that, in the opposition case Pro TV v Adrian Sarbu, there is likelihood of confusion between the earlier trade marks invoked by the opponent, oriented around the particle(s) "Pro"and "Sport", and the subsequent sign applied for (depicted in figure 1).
  • On September 22 2015, Kristian Kabuay, a blogger in the website baybayin.com accused the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) of having stolen its Baybayin logo. The controversial logo is shown.
  • After many years of negotiation, agreement has been reached on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. The free trade agreement between 12 countries – Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam – is intended to liberalise trade between the regions while setting out consistent rules that make it easier for participating countries to do business.
  • In recent times we became aware of some requests for advice as to whether a statement of excuse for the non-working of a patented invention in Mexico should be filed with the Patent Office (IMPI).
  • Pacogi Netherlands filed a Benelux trade mark application for the mark shown in figure 1. Balenciaga was not happy about it and filed a formal opposition with the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP). The opposition was based on the prior rights in the wordmark Balenciaga and the device mark (figure 2).
  • According to the Greek Law on Trade Marks, civil courts have jurisdiction to rule in trade mark infringement cases, whereas administrative courts have jurisdiction on a trade mark's registrability.
  • 3D printing technology has been in the market for several decades and was originally invented in the 1980s. The recent development however which affects IP and other legal issues is that 3D printers are now accessible to consumers and retail for as low as $1,000, while industrial 3D printers can print highly intricate and complex objects which are fully assembled, complete with moving parts or hinges.
  • On May 22 2015, the Japanese Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) rendered a decision granting orders for a surcharge to four cathode-ray tube (CRT) manufacturers in southeast Asia based on the Japanese Antimonopoly Act. The total surcharges amounted to about ¥3.2 billion ($26 million). The companies subject to the order are MT Picture Display Indonesia, MT Picture Display Malaysia, MT Picture Display Thailand, belonging to Panasonic group, and Samsung SDI Malaysia, belonging to Samsung group. The CRT manufacturers in southeast Asia and their parent companies were found to have formed a price cartel in selling CRTs to TV manufacturers in southeast Asia.